This article outlines rethinking internationalization of higher education as internationalizing the curriculum at home for all students—a transformational educational endeavor accessible to all students. Practical strategies and a research agenda to facilitate this are outlined.
The internationalization of higher education (IoHE) has the potential to contribute to the creation of a better world, but delivering on the promise requires ensuring that internationalization is equitable and accessible to all students. Accessibility has been at the center of discussions concerning internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) and internationalization at home (IaH) for two decades. Today, both IoC and IaH are widely recognized as core educational projects of relevance to all students’ development as human, social, and economic beings. However, these are generally seen as discrete approaches. A combination of the two—internationalization of the curriculum at home (IoCaH)—would position IoHE as a potentially transformational educational endeavor, in which faculty and student affairs staff play a crucial role. However, traditional approaches to supporting IoCaH must be radically changed in order for IoHE to reach its full potential.
It is strategically appropriate to bring IoC and IaH together because both recognize the relationship between internationalization, the quality and relevance of study programs, and activities in the informal curriculum. They have complemented each other for two decades but together, they are much more than the sum of their parts. However, IoCaH will not develop across the institution without strategic thinking and action. Its complexity requires resourcing to maximize impact through innovation and curriculum renewal, including consideration of complex issues such as decolonization of the curriculum, cognitive justice, and the integration of the UNESCO sustainable development goals into the curriculum for all students.
The focus of IoCaH is on purposeful planning and reform of formal, assessed learning and informal experiences on campus and in communities. The purpose of both is to develop all students’ international, intercultural, and global perspectives and capacity to use a range of “soft” skills (for example, critical thinking, problem-solving) to analyze and take individual and collective action on local/global issues. IoCaH combines the strength of research and scholarship conducted in both areas and provides some useful directions for future research.
Previous research into both IoC and IaH has demonstrated the importance of ensuring that those who plan, manage, and support student learning in the formal and informal curriculum have appropriate training and development opportunities as part of institutional internationalization strategies. For example, when it comes to the formal curriculum, curriculum designers and faculty will need to lead positive disruptions to change the taken-for-granted approaches to IoC at home and abroad, and many may feel unprepared to do so. There is a range of constraints to their work, such as an absence of references to curriculum, teaching or learning in internationalization policies, lack of curriculum flexibility and capacity for academic staff to make adjustments to curriculum content and learning outcomes, and finally, limited fiscal and human resources to support IoC.
Several factors have been proven to support faculty as leaders of IoCaH, who would be open to new ideas, knowledge, and perspectives beyond the Western canon and keen to engage in interdisciplinary conversations. These attributes may be influenced by people’s lived experiences, disciplinary/professional affiliations, and confidence to challenge the epistemological and ontological positions of colleagues. These matters deserve further investigation.
A recent study, Disrupting Internationalisation of the Curriculum in Latin America | Higher Education, identified the need for specialized professional learning programs to support IoC. Key findings included that professional learning should be approached as a continuous process, responsibility for which is shared by institutions and individuals. Furthermore, it should be approached as (1) career-wide and self-directed; (2) needs- and practice-focused; (3) interdisciplinary, interprofessional, and interpersonal; and (4) collaborative and integrative. This framework invites institutional action and provides a valuable foundation for future research.
We also know that the professional learning needs of staff will almost certainly change over time and look different across universities. However, similar models can also be employed. For example, the value of using communities of practice to support professional learning specifically for IoC has been repeatedly demonstrated. What these communities explore will vary in different places over time, but how faculty and staff are supported to establish and maintain them may be the same. Resources that have been developed to support IoC and IaH may be tested and modified in different contexts, offering rich opportunities for future research.
Support for the professional development of faculty is a critical component of IoHE as a transformational educational endeavor. Traditional approaches based on activities disconnected from their responsibilities for IoCaH are not sufficient to ensure that all students receive a high-quality internationalized education. What is required are evidence-based, well-resourced, whole-of-institution approaches that treat professional learning as a continuing, active, social, and practice-related process. In relation to IoCaH, this means programs specifically designed to support staff as leaders of IoHE in the university and more widely, in the local and global community.
Betty Leask is professor emerita at La Trobe University, Australia. E-mail: [email protected].